Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil June 15 20041 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council June 15, 2004 Council Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner Sharon Roy Laurie Caskey- Schreiber L. Ward Nelson Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood FLAG SALUTE ANNOUNCEMENTS McShane announced there was discussion with Senior Deputy Prosecutor David Grant regarding two items: BP Cogeneration and Thousand Friends of Washington (AB2004 -018) in executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting. McShane also announced that there was discussion with Public Works Director Jeff Monsen regarding the acquisition of property (AB2004 -018) in executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting. McShane stated no action was taken on any item. He was recused from discussion regarding BP Cogeneration. MINUTES CONSENT Caskey- Schreiber moved to approve the Minutes Consent items. Motion carried unanimously. 1. SPECIAL COUNTY COUNCIL (VOTER REGISTRATION) FOR MAY 25, 2004 2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JUNE 1, 2004 3. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JUNE 1, 2004 Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. 4. WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION FOR MAY 25, 2004 S. SPECIAL COUNTY COUNCIL (MASTER FACILITIES PLAN) FOR JUNE 1, 2004 OPEN SESSION The following people spoke: Chris Ungern, 2095 Northshore Road, stated he has read recent articles in the newspaper about water issues. There seems to be a disconnect between the text of the article and the headline writer. Some academics and public officials agree that even though benzene in water samples is extremely low, no benzene would be even better. That position is a fallacy in logic. There is little in nature that is completely free of impurities and contamination. Banning boats is a misguided attempt to get to a level of zero. The initiative proponents have not made a direct connect between the boats and the ban. They need to focus debate on facts, not emotions. Some people want boats to be a problem, but wishing it doesn't make it true. Duane Jager, 2401 E Street, Bellingham, stated he would speak regarding the Washington Community Economic Revitalization Team (WA -CERT) item. He is the Director of ReUse Works, which is proposed for a rank of nine on the resolution. He asked that the Council approve a higher ranking for the Jobs From The Waste Stream" project. His nonprofit organization seeks predevelopment funds to provide jobs and job training for low income citizens by salvaging, repairing, and selling major household appliances. The project is a replication of ReUse Industries, which today salvages and sells a variety of wastes stream projects. The other WA -CERT projects are all important to the community. The funding sources available to ReUse Works are not the same as those available to other highly ranked projects. However, a State or federal agency interested in working with ReUse would see the ninth place ranking, which could negatively affect their funding the decision. He recommends the Council approve several number one ranked projects and several number two ranked projects. This would allow a high priority ranking for several non - competing projects. It would potentially attract additional State and federal monies without jeopardizing funding for other projects. Crawford asked if WA -CERT requires ranking and if the Council can rank all projects number one. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated WA -CERT requires some kind of ranking. The Council has some flexibility in how often it can rank projects. He'll have to find out more about the question. Occasionally, communities are allowed a tie. Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, thanked people from the Birch Bay near the C Shop. Regarding the Boats Off issue, he would like to see most of the boats on the lake be V8 power inboard boats. He would like to see ramps so every boat that comes in and out of the lake has a place to drain its bilge and wash. Personally, he would like to see most motor boats off the lake. Stormwater runoff is the problem. They all know that stormwater is a problem. Find a project to fix the problem of stormwater. The project could be a huge basin to pipe water to an arboretum to clean the stormwater. Keep the debate about the boats honest. Jean Freestone, 3200 Vallette Street, Bellingham, stated Lake Whatcom is clean, big, natural, and close. It is really a chain of three lakes. There are three basins with high sills in between and separate drainage areas. The City's water intake was designed to be moved to basin three if warranted. If the intake were moved to basin three in Lake Whatcom, it would largely end disputes about threats to our drinking water quality. Basins one and two are shallow, and hold only two percent of the water. They are in or near urban areas with urban services appropriate for residences and recreation. They are downstream from basin three, which is deep and clean. It's mostly surrounded by forestland. It's an excellent drinking water source. Distinguish the three basins into three different lakes. Bill Grant, 7806 Birch Bay Drive, Goldstar Resorts President, stated Goldstar Resorts is developing a multi - purpose resort at Birch Bay. The building will have six stories, 60 condominiums, and 20,000 square feet of retail space. Construction will begin August 1, 2004. The project is financed by a local bank. The Birch Bay Subarea Plan will accommodate 400 condominiums. The zone is for a density of 16 units per acre. The Sandcastle building will market at $14 million. It will provide thousands of dollars of excise and property taxes. There is about $100,000 of expenses going to infrastructure. That is one of the ways the Birch Bay Community Plan will be financed. It is one of seven buildings. Caskey- Schreiber asked if he is going to keep the Dry Dock restaurant. Grant stated it will be demolished, reopened inside the Sandcastle, and reopen larger and with more employees. Larry Leeper, 5712 Lawrence Road, Leeper Marine Specialties Owner, stated he services Lake Whatcom and other lakes. Regarding the Boats Off issue, there are three misconceptions about boating. The first misconception is that boaters are rich boys with toys. That's not true. Most are family people. A second misconception is that only a small group of people boat. According to the Whatcom County registered boats list, there are 8,800 pleasure boats in Whatcom County. There are many family and friends who use each of those boats. At least half of the people in this county are involved in pleasure boating at some time during the year. A third misconception is that only a few businesses will be hurt by the ban. That's not true. His business alone supports 35 vendors, his elderly parents, and his college -aged daughter. A boat ban affects hundreds of businesses. The issue is about more than boating. Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Judy Russi, citizen, stated she comes from a family, which have fun doing lots of things. Kayaking is popular. There are lots of kinds of boating. Boating doesn't have to be on Lake Whatcom. There are a lot of places to boat. The schools are giving reports now on the cleanliness of the lake. People in paddle boats are swamped by motor boats. People have said the water tastes like gasoline. She doesn't believe that everyone's businesses rely on boats on Lake Whatcom. There are plenty of places to boat. Put the issue on the ballot. It won't cost anything. She questioned who would do enforcement if they allow only certain types of motorboats. She asked the sheriff deputy what happens if there is an oil spill when someone is putting oil in the boats. The deputy stated it's not a big deal if it's an accident. It wouldn't cost anything to take those boats off the lake. Gary Lisne, 2472 Northshore Road, stated the Boats Off initiative had enough signatures for a mini - initiative, which was presented to the Council. The Council has 60 days to hold a public hearing and to vote to either accept or reject the issue. He asked when that hearing will be scheduled. McShane stated the hearing will be held on July 20 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Sharon Crozier, Bellingham, stated that if there was a fence around the lake, a boating prohibition would be easy to accept. They have to treat the reservoir like a reservoir. There have been a lot of gyrations in logic, such as when people say there is no pollution in the lake, but they can find another water source. The cleaner boats still produce four ounces per gallon, according to the people who testified before the City Council committee. Dr. Robin Matthews said they can't develop the lake anymore. Since then, they continue to issue building permits. It's not about money or property values any more than it is in other places that take care of their drinking water. This is simple. People should be trying to get permission to put boats on the lake, not take boats off. The issue is not about whether they should move the intake to the third basin because it's polluted only a little. The issue is about principle and what they already know. It's about having the courage to do what couldn't be done before. Lisa Carter - Riley, Fairhaven, stated she has a compromised immune system and cannot drink the water from Lake Whatcom. Maintain a level of integrity in the water. The benzene and petroleum products don't leave the body. In future generations, the health risk will increase. They can kill a lake by affecting the sediment. It is an emotional issue. It's sad to hear those who think they should ignore their emotions. There needs to be a lot of education about boating on the lake. If the issue doesn't get on the ballot, the Council should increase education. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 11, BOATING AND SWIMMING (AB2004 -224) Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, gave a staff report and stated the amendments are simple. One is to clarify an inconsistency pertaining to speed limits on Lake Whatcom. This change will bring two sections into conformity with each other. Also, the language in the penalty section is amended to reflect the correct Revised Code of Washington (RCW) section. The penalty is not changed. Crawford asked if this is a law that is never enforced. Frakes stated it is enforced. Crawford asked if these discrepancies would have been discovered as a matter of course if this were brought to court. Frakes stated all she can say is that no one questioned it in the past. The County has the authority to impose the penalty. It was a mistake that the wrong section of the RCW was referenced. McShane asked if there was any discussion about marking these speed zones with buoys. Frakes stated there was not any discussion on that. The whole section of the code needs work, and staff will probably be back with more amendments. McShane stated he would like to speak with the deputy to find out what the Council can do or provide to help him with enforcement. Frakes stated she would pass that message along. McShane stated the public hearing has been held open from the previous Council meeting and invited citizens to speak. Hearing no one, McShane closed the public hearing. Caskey- Schreiber moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC HEARING TO REPORT ON PROJECT OUTCOME OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FOR NUGENT ROAD FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS AS REQUIRED OF LUMMI ISLAND COMMUNITY LAND TRUST LOW- INCOME HOUSING PROJECT KNOWN AS THE CEDRUS COOPERATIVE/ NEWPORT (AB2004 -227) Joe Rutan, Public Works, gave a staff report and stated this public hearing is a requirement of the community development block grant (CDBG) process. The project by the Lummi Island Community Land Trust did some road frontage improvements on South Nugent Road. The County administers the block grant. For the amount of the grant and the requirements related to the grant, the County decided the most efficient way to do this was to have the County do the work under day labor. The County received approval from the County Road Administration Board, the Community Development Block Grant manager, and County Executive. The work was done in October 2003. The project was successful. He referenced the vicinity map on Council packet page 266 and the financial summary on Council Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. packet page 275. The County was able to accomplish all the work, including grant administration, for slightly over $13,000. The grant was for $27,000. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County gets to keep the balance. Rutan stated it does not. McShane opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Crawford moved to accept the report. Motion carried unanimously. 3. RESOLUTION ORDERING AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST PROPERTY AT 4739 ALDERSON ROAD, BLAINE, WA, PURSUANT TO THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS (AB2004- 200) Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, gave a staff report and stated there was a very thorough report on the abatement process prepared for the Council. After trying to get the owner to remove a burned out mobile home, the County did it, as it is allowed to do by law. The County is asking that a lien of assessment for the cost of the removal be placed on the property. The property is in the process of changing hands. At this point, it's still owned by a Canadian. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Frakes continued to state that an attempt to collect on a personal obligation from the property owner would be difficult, at best. She's asking that it be imposed upon the property. McShane opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Brenner moved to approve the resolution. She thanked staff for doing this. Fleetwood asked if the obligation runs with the house instead of the individual who committed the problem. Frakes stated the Council has an option of imposing it as either a personal obligation or against the property. Fleetwood stated it seems to be a fairness issue. The person who is responsible doesn't get stuck with the obligation. Frakes stated the person still owns the property. The property was in the process of being sold. Fortunately, before the property changed hands, she notified the title company. The title company notified the prospective buyer. The property is still owned by the woman who had the burned mobile home on the property. Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. McShane stated the title company will work it out as part of the sales negotiation. Motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve Consent Agenda items two through five. Motion to approve Consent Agenda items two through five carried unanimously. 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM LAND TRUST FOR THE CANYON CREEK ALLUVIAL FAN ACQUISITION PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $127,000, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $527,000 (AB2004 -233) Crawford moved to approve Consent Agenda item one. McShane stated he voted against this item in committee because he was not in favor of the increase. Motion failed for a lack of majority, 3 -2 with Brenner and McShane opposed. Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated she wanted to remind the Council of the June 1 meeting when they authorized the expenditure. Brenner stated there were more councilmembers present at that meeting. McShane stated that, given that a majority of the councilmembers voted for the expenditure and that councilmembers not present tonight expressed support of this item, he won't interfere with the wishes of the majority of the Council by taking a stand on principle at this time. He moved to reconsider the motion to approve. Motion to reconsider carried 4 -1 with Brenner opposed. McShane moved to approve Consent Agenda item one. Brenner stated it's outrageous that the price has gone up as it has. This is no reflection on the Whatcom Land Trust. They were pushed against the wall by parties who they thought would pay a certain amount for this. It isn't right. They're doing a disservice to the public. Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. McShane stated he agrees. However, the County made a commitment to a number of people and should carry through with it. Motion to approve carried 4 -1 with Brenner opposed. 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND TRIMAXX CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR MOSQUITO LAKE ROAD CULVERT REPLACEMENT AT JOHNSON'S CREEK (CRP 903008) IN THE AMOUNT OF $211,845 (AB2004 -234) 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND JEFFREY A. LUSTICK FOR CRIMINAL INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES FOR DEFENDANTS FOR WHOM THERE EXISTS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, SUPERIOR, JUVENILE AND DISTRICT COURTS (AB2004 -235) 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND HANDEL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR PURCHASE AND CUSTOMIZATION OF A CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS AND STATUS OF OFFENDERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $153,365 (AB2004 -236) S. RESOLUTION SETTING A HEARING TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION, REQ. #07 -04 (AB2004 -237) OTHER ITEMS 1. REPORT ON PRESENTATION BY STEVE HOOD, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, REGARDING THE TMDL FOR LAKE WHATCOM (AB2004- 241) Caskey- Schreiber reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated they hope to have result of the total maximum daily load (TMDL) study in a year. The study will include an allowable level of pollutants in the lake. The County will try to reduce any pollution beyond that level. The County and City of Bellingham will have to plan to reduce the pollutants going into the lake. The committee also received a brief presentation and discussion of the draft Salmon Recovery Plan (AB2004 -232) from Dr. Bruce Roll. They will talk more about the Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board recommendations at the next water resources work session. Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Last, Senior Planner Kraig Olason informed the committee that the County just received a $1 million matching federal grant for the purchase of development rights (PDR) program for farm applications. McShane stated the real concern about the TMDL permit is the financial obligation that someone will have to pay to reduce the amount of phosphorus and dissolved oxygen in the lake. They will have to reduce the amount of existing discharges into the lake. Someone will have to pay for that. It is a big problem that could become bigger as they proceed with development currently in the watershed. It's a liability issue for the County and an equity issue for the people who will pay for that reduction in pollution. 2. POSSIBLE DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON AMENDED PROPOSAL FOR THE EXCHANGE OF COUNTY -OWNED PROPERTY AND CASH PAYMENT FOR CITY OF BELLINGHAM OWNED PROPERTY (AB2004 -213A) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and stated the committee wasn't required to take any action today. If the purchase can't be consummated on June 30th, there could be a lease arrangement to bridge the time from the deadline to the closing of the property sale. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2004 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, 7T" REQUEST (AB2004 -226) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to adopt the ordinance. McShane stated he is unhappy about border protection item coming to the Council nine months after the fact. The agreement was signed in September 2003. That's a problem. It's the second time an agreement has come forward after the fact. In addition, he is concerned about the program. There are impacts to the Sheriff's Office and County funds by supporting this item. The Council needs to have a discussion about this activity before they enter into another one of these agreements in the future. He asked how they deal with the cost and liability of Sheriff deputies working overtime and possibly getting hurt. The County is stuck with the cost of any injuries. The agreement is a good deal for Homeland Security because they don't have to hire more people. The County gets to bear the risks. He is putting the administration on notice that he won't support this in the future. Because this was already done, he will go ahead and vote for approval. Caskey- Schreiber stated she agreed. Her husband, a U.S. Customs officer, had his amount of overtime cut the past couple of years. U.S. Customs is contracting out the work. It is strange that the Council is getting this item so late. She also has reservations about contracting out for this kind of work. She doesn't know if it's best for the Sheriff's Office to channel it's energy into the U.S. Customs' issues. Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. McShane stated he would like to have a conversation about this during the budget cycle. Motion to adopt carried unanimously. 4. ORDINANCE TO PERMANENTLY CLOSE GARRISON ROAD FROM SR 9 (EAST BADGER ROAD) TO APPROXIMATELY 0.01 MILES SOUTH OF SR 9 (AB2004 -210) Brenner reported for the Public Works and Safety Committee and stated the recommendation from committee is to keep Garrison Road open, and to recommend to the State Department of Transportation to use the western option of Garrison Road as the preferable option. McShane moved to adopt the ordinance. He wants to approve the ordinance with the caveat that the intersection of Telegraph Road and East Badger Road be improved so trucks can make the turn from East Badger Road onto southbound Telegraph Road. Fleetwood asked if State can force the issue if the Council were to do nothing. Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, stated the State has the authority to close the northern leg of Garrison Road without any involvement of the County. If the southern leg of Garrison Road remains connected to East Badger Road, that alignment is a selection the State would make. Fleetwood stated the decision between going west or east was close. The primary concern about going east was about an S curve that would be built. Rutan stated the 100 -foot radius S curve is a concern. The owner of that property is also concerned about the proximity of the road to his house. Brenner stated she went to the intersection. It's safer to put the road to the west. The east side has a manure lagoon. There is very little property to work with on the east side. The road would bump up against the property owner's home. The 1.75 acres to the west is not a huge amount of farmland. Crawford stated two councilmembers voting against this motion can fail the motion. He's concerned about the message the Council sends to the Department of Transportation (DOT). He wants to keep this in committee for two weeks while Mr. Rutan and the DOT staff talk to each other about the viability of each option. Also, in two weeks they may have all seven councilmembers present. Fleetwood asked if time is of the essence. Rutan stated construction is a number of years out. The DOT is in the midst of obtaining rights -of -way. Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is not in favor of this. She doesn't understand why they are putting express routes through rural lands to facilitate trucks that have the ability to travel on a freeway in Canada. Think about a high density traffic corridor. Put funds instead toward widening the Guide Meridian instead of creating little expressways in the middle of nowhere. Fleetwood stated there are very narrow edges to the road. If a driver miscalculates, there could be an accident. Brenner stated most roads in that area have very narrow edges. If drivers go the speed limit, it wouldn't be a problem. Crawford stated these are old County roads that were converted into a State highway to Sumas. Now, there are three 90 degree turns in this State highway that covers old County roads. He explained the locations of those turns. The safety advantage for this highway will be that it will be constructed with shoulders and it will have one wide - angled 90 degree turn. That gets the County out of overlaying the State highway onto old County roads and into the efficiency and safety issues of a State highway that has been planned for a long time. Motion to adopt failed 1 -4 with McShane in favor. McShane stated the Council just voted to not close Garrison Road. That means the DOT will proceed with realigning Highway 9 anyway and will not be able to close the south end of Garrison Road. The DOT will need to choose a route. The County can express its recommendation on the two alternatives to move Garrison Road, one option to the east and the other option to the west. The State is not obliged one way or the other to follow the County's recommendation. Crawford moved to recommend to the State Department of Transportation to pursue the westerly Garrison Road diversion option as drawn on page five of the Garrison Road closure handout distributed by the State Department of Transportation representative in committee today. The easterly approach has real disadvantages. First, the center of the intersection would be directly in the middle of the railroad tracks. It deals with the left hand turn issue, but the railroad company is concerned. The option eliminates the traffic backup across the tracks. However, he doesn't think designing an intersection that lands in the middle of railroad tracks is not a good design. In addition, the eastern option would place Garrison Road very close to the property owner's house. The alignment requires a 100 -foot radius S curve that causes a driver to make a nearly right hand turn and an immediate left hand turn right before the intersection. The option he prefers takes up more land, but makes a gentler curve and doesn't end up in the middle of the railroad tracks. It also solves the problem of folks getting access to Highway 9. Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Caskey- Schreiber stated she prefers to have DOT present a different option. These options may save dollars, but there are other things the DOT can do. The DOT can use Garrison Road if it modifies the turns, and not have to build a new highway. She will abstain from making any recommendations. The DOT needs to make another recommendation and the Council needs to discuss it further. Brenner stated she prefers the western option over the eastern option, but she agrees with Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber. She prefers the DOT come back to the Council with another option. She will also abstain. McShane stated the Council chose to not close the road. Therefore, the State will choose the route that works best for them. The Council can express a preference. Rutan stated this road will be a County road upon completion of the State's project. He will work with the DOT to come to a solution. McShane stated fixing the Telegraph Road intersection would be preferable. This road will be altered one way or another. Rutan stated he has made a note of that concern. Motion failed 1 -2 -2 with Crawford in favor and Brenner and Caskey - Schreiber abstaining. McShane stated there is no preference from the Council. Brenner moved to request that the DOT keep the north end of Garrison Road open. Motion failed 2 -2 -1 with Fleetwood and Brenner in favor and Caskey - Schreiber abstaining. S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.82, PUBLIC UTILITIES, ADDRESSING TRANSMISSION LINES OF 115 KV AND TRANSMISSION LINES OF 115 KV OPERATING ABOVE 160 MW, AND MODIFYING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.42 AND 20.43, RURAL AND COMMERCIAL FORESTRY CHAPTERS (AB2004 -225) Brenner reported for the Public Works and Safety Committee and stated this item is held in committee for two weeks. 6. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BIRCH BAY COMMUNITY PLAN (AB2004- 121) Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated this item was held in committee for two weeks. Changes were proposed that would significantly change the ordinance, and the ordinance wouldn't be ready for introduction tonight. One specific proposed change was the provision related to development density in Birch Bay and planned unit developments. Previously, 5.8 Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. units per acre was the maximum density allowed. The committee moved to increase the maximum density to eight units per acre, which causes a series of changes to the entire plan that couldn't be changed in time for the evening meeting. In addition, the committee discussed including Birch Point in the urban growth area (UGA). He supported the motion because the majority of the Council will support it. Given that political reality, he voted to include it believing it would allow the Council to go forward with the public hearing on June 29th. In retrospect, that was moot because the Council won't have a public hearing and consideration on the 29th. Right now, the formal position is that Birch Point is included in the subarea plan. He suggested that the public who are interested get a copy of the revised plan to date and review it. McShane stated he is concerned about changing the density maximum. That is a significant change to how the plan will look. That is the kind of issue that should be brought forward to the full Council before staff spends a lot of time on it. Without the full Council present, this is probably not the best night to do that. Have a discussion of whether councilmembers are okay with it before staff works on something that may get removed anyway. At a certain point, the Council voted on some of the amendments, such as Birch Point, which was removed from the UGA. Additional discussion has occurred and it's okay to put Birch Point back in. However, it's okay to not rush the plan to focus on the Council's issues. This is an issue the Council should vote on during the next meeting to see what direction they really want to go. Fleetwood stated another option is that members who have an opinion can come to the Planning Committee on June 29th and do the same thing. Brenner stated that's what she prefers. That's the reason they have committees. It's respectful to the committee members to do it that way. If they can't find a way to increase the density, she won't support removing Point Whitehorn and Birch Point from the UGA. McShane stated the full Council needs to really discuss it. Caskey- Schreiber stated the committee voted to put Birch Point back in before there was discussion about what density swapping might occur. It will be extra work for staff, but the Council has yet to take a hard look at how many units they're trying to accommodate out there for a certain number of people. That's a crucial element of the plan. They are getting more intense recommendations from the Department of Ecology and the Puget Sound Action Team to pull out those areas from the UGA. With this new information, the dynamics are different. They must look seriously at whether they can increase the density and not lose the quality and character that everyone wants in the first place. Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. McShane stated there is no need to be trying to hit timelines they can't meet. Ultimately, the decision is up to the entire Council. It would be a good idea to check in with the entire Council. Now, there are three committee members who understand what is going on. Caskey- Schreiber stated the reason the vote came up early is because the Council was on an alleged timeline. They were worried that this was a significant change that would be made that night. She understands the concern and wishes everyone comes to the Planning Committee meetings. McShane stated everyone needs to slow down. Because the density change is such a significant issue, the committee members need to check in with the Council. Fleetwood stated they don't have the right composition of councilmembers at this meeting to do that. They don't have a majority. Caskey- Schreiber stated she's frustrated. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Caskey- Schreiber continued to state that they had a two -hour committee meeting about this. She asked if the committee is not supposed to come up with any recommendations at all. McShane stated that when the Birch Bay plan was first in committee, the committee made some significant recommendations for change. That evening, the Council voted to go with some of those changes. The committee has proceeded with those changes in place. When large changes like this occur, they know there will be contention on the Council. It's worthwhile to check in and see where all the councilmembers are. The committee may not have the support of the majority of the Council to make those large changes. There needs to be some sensitivity to that. The last thing they want to do is bring forward to the public hearing a large plan that the Council majority won't support. It's worthwhile to check in. At the next Council meeting, check in with the Council on a large density change in the plan. At the next meeting, the committee can talk about it. Tonight's not the night because there are only five councilmembers present. Only three councilmembers are familiar with the discussion. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the committee should undo what it did today, and not have staff come up with density options. McShane stated it's fine for staff to proceed with developing options. At the next committee meeting, keep in mind that major changes should be presented to the Council at the evening meeting to make sure it's something the Council wants to put it forward as a part of the public hearing. Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE BIRCH BAY URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -122) This item was not discussed. 8. APPOINTMENT TO THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, APPLICANT: DUANE JAGER (AB2004 -231) Fleetwood moved to appoint Duane Jager. Motion carried unanimously. 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW APPLICATION FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THAI STEAK HOUSE, 8124 BIRCH BAY DRIVE, BLAINE, WA (AB2004 -239) Brenner moved to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. INTRODUCTION ITEMS Fleetwood moved to accept the Introduction Items. Fleetwood withdrew items two and three, which have been held in committee. Motion carried unanimously. McShane moved to accept the corrected version of Introduction Item four, submitted to the Council earlier today. Motion carried unanimously. 1. RECEIPT OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION BY THE GIFT EXEMPTION PROCESS, FILED BY MARK AND ROY PALMER (AB2004- 230) 2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BIRCH BAY COMMUNITY PLAN (AB2004- 121) This item was withdrawn. Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE BIRCH BAY URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -122) This item was withdrawn. 4. RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION 2003 -041: WASHINGTON COMMUNITY ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION TEAM (WA -CERT) TO PROVIDE ANNUAL PRIORITIZATION OF WA -CERT PROJECTS (AB2004 -240) S. RESOLUTION SELLING TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION, REQ. #07 -04 (AB2004 -237A) ADDENDA: 6. ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR IMMEDIATE REMOVAL FROM LAKE WHATCOM OF ALL GAS - POWERED CRAFT (AB2004 -242) 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2004 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, EIGHTH REQUEST (AB2004 -244) OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS Crawford stated he and Councilmember Brenner attended a summit. The STAR Board of Directors will have a meeting on Friday to decide the next steps. Brenner stated the summit was very well done. She hoped there will be strong ordinances coming forward to protect people from methamphetamine labs. McShane stated he attended the Resource Advisory Committee for the Mt. Baker /Snoqualmie National Forest. He will submit to the Council projects that were funded pending Skagit County's and Whatcom County's decision about Title 2 and Title 3 monies. The jail crew funding placed second on the list of projects. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on June 29 , 2004. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Council Chair Whatcom County Council, 6/15/2004, Page 17